• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Avalon Court Care Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Banner Lane, Tile Hill, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV4 9XA

Provided and run by:
Avery Homes RH Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile
Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

6 January 2016

During a routine inspection

We inspected Avalon Court Care Home on 6 January 2016. The inspection visit was unannounced.

The home was divided into three separate floors. The ground floor provided residential living, the first floor, known as the Memory Suite, provided care and support for people with dementia care needs, and the second floor a “Step-down” unit provided short term rehabilitation nursing care. This is for people who have been in hospital who need further nursing support before going back to their own homes. The home provided personal and nursing care for up to 101 people. There were 52 people living at the home when we inspected the service. The home had a third floor but this was not yet occupied as the provider was in the process of recruiting staff.

A requirement of the service’s registration is that they have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. We refer to the registered manager as the manager in the body of this report.

People were protected against the risk of abuse as the provider took appropriate steps to recruit suitable staff, and staff knew how to protect people from harm. Safeguarding concerns were investigated and responded to, however the provider failed to notify us of a recent incident at the home that was being investigated.

Due to a number of staff having left the provider’s employment, staffing numbers were supported by the use of agency nurses and care staff, to ensure there were enough staff available at the times people needed them. However, some people told us they did not consistently receive safe care and support from staff who knew them, and at times there were not enough staff to meet their needs. The provider tried to ensure continuity of care by using agency staff that had worked at the home before and was actively recruiting new staff.

Care plans and risk assessments were in place to protect people however risk assessments were not consistently followed to keep people safe. Some care plans lacked detail about people and their care. However, staff spoken with had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs.

Medicines were administered safely however documentation was not always completed correctly. People were supported to access healthcare from a range of professionals inside and outside the home and received support with their nutritional needs. This assisted them to maintain their health.

The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Decisions were made in people’s ‘best interests’ where they could not make decisions for themselves.

Care staff treated people with kindness, respect and dignity, and supported people to maintain their privacy and independence. People made choices about who visited them at the home. This helped people maintain personal relationships with people that were important to them.

People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. Complaints received were fully investigated and analysed so that the provider could learn from them. People, who used the service, and their relatives, were given the opportunity to share their views about how the service was run through meetings.

Quality assurance procedures identified where the service needed to make improvements and where issues had been identified the manager took action to continuously improve the service.

People were encouraged to maintain their interests and hobbies and staff supported their personal preferences . People's care records were not consistently kept up to date to reflect the care and support they received each day from staff.

Staff were supported by the registered manager, deputy manager and floor managers through regular team meetings and observation. Staff had regular supervision sessions and felt their training and induction supported them to meet the needs of people they cared for. People and their relatives felt the permanent staff had the skills and knowledge to support people well.

The registered manager and deputy manager felt well supported by the provider who visited regularly.